The Right To Vote, For Property Owners Only?

[purplehawk]

Cairo Illinois has had a spectacularly turbulent past. It's strategic location at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers led to its halcyon years as a river port. When the boats left, however, Cairo fell on hard times from which it has yet to recover.

Wikipedia With the decline in river trade, like many other river cities, the population of Cairo has declined from a 1920 high of 15,203 to 3,632 in 2000. There is a movement to stop this gradual abandonment, restore Cairo's architectural landmarks, develop tourism focusing on its history, and bring new opportunities back to the community. Cairo was the scene of the circus-like lynching of the black resident Will James in front of a crowd of hundreds in 1909. In 1969, Cairo was the site of an intense civil rights struggle to end segregation and create job opportunities. The threat of violence resulted in the National Guard being called in to restore order. The United Front civil rights organization led a decade-long boycott of white-owned businesses -- meaning all of them. Its economy crippled, Cairo has emerged slowly from the contention. The city today faces many significant socio-economic challenges for the remaining population, including poverty, issues in education, employment and rebuilding its tax base. A community clinic offers medical and dental care, and also several mental health services. Cairo at the confluence of the Mississippi and Ohio Rivers. Cairo’s turbulent history is chronicled on a concept music CD called Greetings From Cairo, Illinois, released in 2005 by musician Stace England. Cairo, Illinois

It seems obvious that racism played a huge role in Cairo's decline. If Cairo's white businessmen and women were so steeped in racist beliefs that they let their personal livelihood and the local economy go to pot, there's no hope for them.

[Sherlock Holmes]

Let's leave racism out of this discussion, whatever it's impact may have been in Cairo. This thread is about property-owner qualifications for voting.

[Wab]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

Precisely. You pay into the system. You are not a deliberate drain upon it.

What if you do both, like a subsidised farmer?

[rigdoctorbri]

Purple, let's take a good look at the numbers, shall we?

Illinois Department of Human Services issues food stamps under a federal program to a family of 5 meeting income requirements:

$698.00 benefit reduced to $493.00 depending on income up to $2687.00 from any source including TANF, minus expenses such as rent, taxes, utilities.

Illinois Department of Public Aid Benefit to a family of 5 under TANF program: $1641.00 (state and federally tax free for up to 6 months, renewable for due dilligence)

There is no limit to the length of time you can receive benefits if you can demonstrate you are searching for employment. This simply means taking a form to a job interview, and having them sign it. Those abusing the system may go to the job interview with no intent on accepting work, just so they can have their form signed. To demonstrate due diligence in your search, you must have one form signed each quarter (every three months).

Also, under the Illnois Medicaid system, recipients essentially receive free-and nearly unrestricted healthcare.

I have just demonstrated how a family of 5 can get up to $2300.00 worth of benefits, tax-free, plus healthcare. Now, tell me that isn't laughing all the way to the bank?

I work hard. I am gone from home at least 6 months of the year, closer to 8 months, and I gross around $4000.00 a month. Taxes are roughly $600.00 to $800.00 a month. My mortgage fluxuates, but is around $700.00, my utilities are around $300.00, childcare is $780.00 for two kids a month, and a car payment of $320.00 plus insurance. I pay for my family's healthcare through my employer at $177.00 every two weeks. This leaves me about $600.00 a month for food, gas, incidentals, and entertainment.

I may as well sit at the house and collect a check.

And don't anyone dare accuse me of not knowing what is like to be poor again! I lived in the City of Chicago, and worked ambulance in some of the roughest parts of town for years. I have seen first-hand what it is like. Most people try to get by, and are disheartened to have to sit on state aid, but when people call your ambulance crew in the middle of the night because they are "dying", but unbuckle their ambulance cots and hop out, walking down the street when you get to the hospital because they just didn't want to pay for a cab ride to meet up with their buddies, sympathy wanes. And I am not just giving you a single anecdote. This was routine. My average 24 hour shift included at least 1 trip like this. And these people were the ones who got to vote on my annual budget, the people who decided my base-pay, my taxes, my way of life. Am I bitter? Absolutely! Do they deserve to vote? Absolutely not!

Originally Posted by chparadise

Under this "pay into" system, some of the other people who wouldn't be able to vote are the young soldiers renting apartments near their bases - or living on the base. They don't own property, yet they are entrusted with one of the most essential tasks in our democracy - the defense of our country. Hardly seems fair that they wouldn't have a say in who tells them where to go and what to do.

I posted this thread, and posed it as a question of property owners being the voting class...I see the error of my question. In some cases I agree with the idea, but on the whole I feel the focus should be redirected. It really should be about limiting the vote to those who pay into the system, not necessarily property owners. A soldier doing his or her duty is more than paying into the system. They should get two votes.

Originally Posted by Wab

What if you do both, like a subsidised farmer?

I don't know the specifics of a Subsidized Farmer, but farmers are providers to the nation. Some, as I understand it, sometimes get paid to not grow crops for one reason or another. Sometimes it is because of expected surpluses, other times because markets demand it. In any case, the farmers often are not the ones saying they won't grow this season or the next, but the governmental bodies telling the to shutdown for a bit. I may be completely erroneous on this since I have not researched it.

[purplehawk]

Have you ever tried to raise a family of five on $2,300 a month?

Those who can do it could probably teach us both something about budgeting.

[rigdoctorbri]

I would agree with you if those figures were before taxes, but as this is tax free, it ain't bad!

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

I would propose that as long as they are on the dole, they forfeit their rights to vote, unless they can show inability to work by reason of injury, illness, or other infirmity. Of course, this would never happen, because what politician would take the vote away from their voter-base? You would never see another elected Democrat again...

One has to wonder then why Republican politicians aren't loudly promising to do so...?

[rigdoctorbri]

I will grant you that being a property owner under such conditions is nearly impossible, but I am sure some have found a way.

Now, back on topic a bit before we end up in the sin-bin!

Why should those who find a comfortable, if not avaricial, living via the dole be allowed to continue to vote for those who continue to make it possible?

Originally Posted by Yoana

One has to wonder then why Republican politicians aren't loudly promising to do so...?

Would you vote for me if I were running, even if you believed in it yourself? A Republican would soon have such negative press that regardless of how many supporters he or she had, they couldn't get elected.

[Yoana]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

I will grant you that being a property owner under such conditions is nearly impossible, but I am sure some have found a way.

What if, like Klio said, you don't want to own property?

Why should those who find a comfortable, if not avaricial, living via the dole be allowed to continue to vote for those who continue to make it possible?

Because this is what democracy dictates, and it would be no democracy otherwise, but rule of the rich.

Would you vote for me if I were running, even if you believed in it yourself? A Republican would soon have such negative press that regardless of how many supporters he or she had, they couldn't get elected.

That is supposing the press has more influence on supporters's voting decisions than their candidates. I believe the reason almost nobody would vote for someone with such a proposal is that such a proposal is in fact outrageous in our context - modern, free, equal-opportunities Western democratic societies.

[rigdoctorbri]

Originally Posted by Yoana

What if, like Klio said, you don't want to own property?

Asked, and answered. If you contribute to society, rather than simply sponging off of it, no problemo!

Because this is what democracy dictates, and it would be no democracy otherwise, but rule of the rich.

True democracy does not exist. In the truest sense of the word, the only true democracies to ever exist were on Pirate Ships, where they selected the captain, and the absolute majority made the decisions. We have a delegated system, a federalist system...not a true democracy. We vote for those who make the decisions. We put our trust in others to decide for us, and we only get to decide every so often who we trust.

That is supposing the press has more influence on supporters's voting decisions than their candidates. I believe the reason almost nobody would vote for someone with such a proposal is that such a proposal is in fact outrageous in our context - modern, free, equal-opportunities Western democratic societies.

The press has a tremendous amount of influence on people's votes...You should check out The Role of The Media In Politics. You will find great debate on that issue. How many voters are truly investigators? How many delve deeply into the candidates, and make their decisions based on first hand knowledge? And, how many cast their votes based on good or bad press? I think you would find far more let the press do their research for them, rather than seek it themselves.

[PLIMPY]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

I suppose after working as a paramedic in Chicago for 10 years, and learning first-hand of people who really don't care to work, that my senses are dulled. So is my empathy for their "plight". They are the drain on society, and rapidly becoming a dominant class. So long as they have the vote, and are moving into becoming a majority, they will continue to vote for politicians who will continue to raise their standard of living, while expecting nothing but their vote in return. This is much of what President Obama is championing.

People on welfare are hardly a majority, nor are they rapidly approaching that status.

Originally Posted by NYT

Nationally, caseloads fell every year from 1994 to 2007, to about 4.1 million people, a level last seen in 1964. The federal total for 2008 has not been published, but the Times analysis of state data suggests they remained essentially flat.

That is less than 1.5% of the population on welfare, and most of those would be children as families pretty much solely make up recipients of TANF benefits. Article

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

Don't get me wrong...I have no problem with giving a boost to those who "need" it, but much of this class of people don't "need" it so much as they simply "want" it. I would propose that as long as they are on the dole, they forfeit their rights to vote, unless they can show inability to work by reason of injury, illness, or other infirmity. Of course, this would never happen, because what politician would take the vote away from their voter-base? You would never see another elected Democrat again...

Other than going against their principle of helping the less fortunate and losing voters that way, the truth is, people who are exceptionally poor tend to vote less than others anyway. Education is the single greatest indicator of poverty, the less educated a person, the more likely they are to live in poverty and the less likely they are to vote (voter participation increases with education).

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

There is no limit to the length of time you can receive benefits if you can demonstrate you are searching for employment. This simply means taking a form to a job interview, and having them sign it. Those abusing the system may go to the job interview with no intent on accepting work, just so they can have their form signed. To demonstrate due diligence in your search, you must have one form signed each quarter (every three months).

I don't believe this to be correct unless I am misunderstanding your assertion. While food stamps may be limitless depending on the rules of the state, that is not the case for cash benefits under TANF. States may exempt a portion of the people who receive TANF benefits from time limits, but for 80% of families, they may not receive benefits for more than five years total and not for more than twenty-four consecutive months. The Wiki page confirms what I remember from college.

As for the assertion that it is better than working, I would disagree on many counts. Not only do I think people prefer to work and take pride in being able to care for their families, but life on welfare is not as cushy as it is made to sound.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which is a bit of a left-leaning source, has the following to say (and if you click the pdf, they also have numbers per state to back up their assertions).

Currently, TANF cash assistance programs only serve about 4 out of every 10 very poor families that meet the income eligibility criteria for the program in their state.

For those who do receive assistance from TANF, the benefits they receive remain quite low. TANF benefits alone do not lift families out of deep poverty. In 2008, all but one state (Alaska) have benefit levels that are less than half of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and some 20 states have benefit levels below 25 percent of the FPL.1 Even when combining TANF benefits with food assistance (recently renamed SNAP) benefits, all but three states (Alaska, Hawaii and California) have benefit levels below 75 percent of the poverty line.

Most of the policy paper discusses how benefits have risen in around half of states, but that is only when not adjusting for inflation. In fact, the worth of benefits is less now than when the law was passed in 1996.

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

And don't anyone dare accuse me of not knowing what is like to be poor again! I lived in the City of Chicago, and worked ambulance in some of the roughest parts of town for years. I have seen first-hand what it is like. Most people try to get by, and are disheartened to have to sit on state aid, but when people call your ambulance crew in the middle of the night because they are "dying", but unbuckle their ambulance cots and hop out, walking down the street when you get to the hospital because they just didn't want to pay for a cab ride to meet up with their buddies, sympathy wanes. And I am not just giving you a single anecdote. This was routine. My average 24 hour shift included at least 1 trip like this. And these people were the ones who got to vote on my annual budget, the people who decided my base-pay, my taxes, my way of life. Am I bitter? Absolutely! Do they deserve to vote? Absolutely not!

I have no intention of making this about you, but I would say that working near or around people who are poor doesn't necessarily make a person realize what it feels like to not be able to pay bills when they come in. Wondering if you will be able to make the rent that month and have a place to live or what you will feed your children for dinner that night will often make people willing to accept benefits that they otherwise might avoid. Are there people who abuse the system? Sure. There are people who cheat in all aspects of society. Just because one person abuses the system doesn't mean it isn't a good or necessary system.

Either way, I believe that all Americans have a stake in the government, as all citizens have in their respective governments. Their children go to school, they use roads and sidewalks and public transportation. It is difficult to argue with someone on something that you believe to be a fundamental human right and they don't. The truth is, when you take away the ability to vote from people, you take away a lot more than their vote in government, you put them at greater risk in society because they lack legal ways to defend themselves and impact the world around them. These people already have so little, can we really say that we want to take away something our country has come to accept is emblematic of their humanity?

[purplehawk]

Wowzers, Plimpy. What a great post!

[Wab]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

I posted this thread, and posed it as a question of property owners being the voting class...I see the error of my question. In some cases I agree with the idea, but on the whole I feel the focus should be redirected.

You originally dimissed it as "absurd".

It really should be about limiting the vote to those who pay into the system, not necessarily property owners. A soldier doing his or her duty is more than paying into the system. They should get two votes.

"Paying" into the system wasn't part of the original proposal as posted.

As for giving preference to people who have done military service...don't get me started.

[flimseycauldron]

Originally Posted by Wab

You originally dimissed it as "absurd".

If someone says they see the error of something through a discussion shouldn't people accept that? After all that is what debating is about. To present the otherside and hope for concessions. I think a comment like this does Doc a disservice.

Originally Posted by Wab

"Paying" into the system wasn't part of the original proposal as posted.

Again if some ground is given over in a debate wouldn't it be better to build on that instead of forcing someone to try to continue to defend a position he no longer feels is necessary. There is a difference between flip-flopping on an issue and reevaluating ones belief system. Doc is usually very consistent so this is hardly a case of flip flopping.

Originally Posted by Wab

As for giving preference to people who have done military service...don't get me started.

I don't think two votes would work. Mainly because, while I respect our military, they are getting paid to do their jobs. They already get a variety of benefits unavailable to the general public which I feel so I don't feel they deserve an extra vote. Putting extra power into their hands could indeed be dangerous. But I don't think that Doc truly meant that. I think he was trying to illustrate a point.

I believe voting is an inalienable right for all. In dealing with class issues there are many different problems but I'll illustrate my own. I live in a fairly afluent town. It is praised for it's school system (accept those within it of course) and not much else. Yet our property owners pay through the nose every year. I have a very modest home on the outskirts of town with several acres of land and pay nearly 6k a year in property taxes alone. The more affluent property owners get the dubious pleasure of paying 15k or more. We don't get very much for our tax dollar. No garbage pick up. In fact we have to pay a one time fee to use our own dump! The "wonderful" school systems actually have children in hallways for classes. The Fire and Police Departments are underfunded. Etc etc.

The problem, from my perspective, is the a combination of many things, but one of my biggest concerns is the number of apartment complexes in our town. The town often allows construction companies to build complexes. The families that move in usually have children. Many are on section 8--i.e. government assistance (Which I pay for again with my federal tax dollar but I digress) The contractor that builds and runs these complexes get a huge tax break from the town (why I am unclear but they do) and the people living there do not pay taxes toward town upkeep. Yet they use public facilities, send their kids to the public schools, depend on the police and fire depts and someone has to pay for it. Yes may of these families mooch the system. Yes a great many of them pay into the system by filling jobs. But it is not a proportionate balance. The vast majority of them, I agree, do not vote, but a sizable chunk do. But the answer does not lie in not allowing them to vote, but rather in a combination of things.

Tax reform is one of the biggest things on a national, state, and local level. Removing tax breaks for large contracting/management firms making it unattractive for them to continuously build. Restricting/Limiting Section 8 benefits. Capping representative pay. I kid you not when I say that 60% of my town's non education tax dollar went to pay increases fro the town's elected officials last year.

And those are just a few things that need to be adjusted in my opinion.





I

[DancingMaenid]

If one must actively contribute to society in order to vote, then where will we stop? A lot of senior citizens live off government aid and are unable to work or contribute much, but they vote quite a bit, and I don't think anyone would suggest they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Likewise, many young adults don't contribute much because they're in school full-time and have limited time to work, but they are still good citizens.

The thought of disenfranchising people because of how much they're capable of contributing, frankly, really disturbs me.

[SSJ_Jup81]

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

If one must actively contribute to society in order to vote, then where will we stop? A lot of senior citizens live off government aid and are unable to work or contribute much, but they vote quite a bit, and I don't think anyone would suggest they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Likewise, many young adults don't contribute much because they're in school full-time and have limited time to work, but they are still good citizens.

The thought of disenfranchising people because of how much they're capable of contributing, frankly, really disturbs me.

Technically, everyone contributes in some way. Every single solitary person in this country, 'cept for probably most kids, has paid some type of a tax. If anything, anyone who has paid any type of a tax should have the right to vote when becoming an adult.

[rigdoctorbri]

Originally Posted by PLIMPY

Other than going against their principle of helping the less fortunate and losing voters that way, the truth is, people who are exceptionally poor tend to vote less than others anyway. Education is the single greatest indicator of poverty, the less educated a person, the more likely they are to live in poverty and the less likely they are to vote (voter participation increases with education).

I would say we saw quite a strong voter turn-out of all demographics in this last election. Remember to look at the Wealth Triangle. At the top are the wealthiest, and there are very few. At the bottom are impoverished, which is a pretty wide base.

I don't believe this to be correct unless I am misunderstanding your assertion. While food stamps may be limitless depending on the rules of the state, that is not the case for cash benefits under TANF. States may exempt a portion of the people who receive TANF benefits from time limits, but for 80% of families, they may not receive benefits for more than five years total and not for more than twenty-four consecutive months. The Wiki page confirms what I remember from college.

Yes, those are the limits, but there are many ways to work around them. A practice commonly used, and impossible to subvert is to continue to take benefits until the time runs out, make someone else in the home HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD for purposes of tax reporting, and then you become their dependent. Meanwhile, your benefits will roll over after a mandatory period.

Others will have multiple members of the household claiming benefits at the same time. Essentially claiming their household is separate from the other. Even if someone does show up at the house to inspect, they can claim they are renting a room, and are therefore a separate household.

As for the assertion that it is better than working, I would disagree on many counts. Not only do I think people prefer to work and take pride in being able to care for their families, but life on welfare is not as cushy as it is made to sound.

Most do prefer to work. Others prefer to work the system.

I have no intention of making this about you, but I would say that working near or around people who are poor doesn't necessarily make a person realize what it feels like to not be able to pay bills when they come in. Wondering if you will be able to make the rent that month and have a place to live or what you will feed your children for dinner that night will often make people willing to accept benefits that they otherwise might avoid. Are there people who abuse the system? Sure. There are people who cheat in all aspects of society. Just because one person abuses the system doesn't mean it isn't a good or necessary system.

Fine, it isn't about me. But, yes, I did work around the poor for years. But, although I was making a decent salary working for the City of Chicago, I was still practically impoverished. Fortunately, I could live without things like Cable TV, electricity, and air-conditioning because I didn't have a family at the time, but I still often wondered if my car was about to be repo'd, or I was going to make rent that month. The price I paid to live in a decent neighborhood.

Either way, I believe that all Americans have a stake in the government, as all citizens have in their respective governments. Their children go to school, they use roads and sidewalks and public transportation. It is difficult to argue with someone on something that you believe to be a fundamental human right and they don't. The truth is, when you take away the ability to vote from people, you take away a lot more than their vote in government, you put them at greater risk in society because they lack legal ways to defend themselves and impact the world around them. These people already have so little, can we really say that we want to take away something our country has come to accept is emblematic of their humanity?

I agree with you that all have a stake in government, just that those who choose to live off of it should sacrifice their rights to decide how it works, until they are actually contributing to it.

Originally Posted by Wab

You originally dimissed it as "absurd".



"Paying" into the system wasn't part of the original proposal as posted.

As for giving preference to people who have done military service...don't get me started.

Yes, I did dismiss it as absurd. But in order to truly take a stance one must see all sides, or else one is blinded by error. I still can't support the idea of ONLY PROPERTY OWNERS, but I can certainly see the points that fall in favor of it. My support for limiting the vote lies simply with those who sponge off society, and still get to vote.

Originally Posted by DancingMaenid

If one must actively contribute to society in order to vote, then where will we stop? A lot of senior citizens live off government aid and are unable to work or contribute much, but they vote quite a bit, and I don't think anyone would suggest they shouldn't be allowed to do so. Likewise, many young adults don't contribute much because they're in school full-time and have limited time to work, but they are still good citizens.

The thought of disenfranchising people because of how much they're capable of contributing, frankly, really disturbs me.

I would assume that senior citizen contributed to society before retiring. Just as a retired enlisted person gets to enjoy most of the full benefits the Navy gave them while on active duty as a reward for long and dedicated service, I see no reason to limit those who were in the workforce, paid taxes, continue to pay taxes on retirement benefits, and are now retired.

And before anyone says "Well, my mother was a housewife, and never worked in the workforce! What about her?" Did she sponge off of society? Did she claim unemployment or Welfare? No, dad was the bread-winner, while mom took care of the household. That is a traditional role. (not one that I support as being "THE WOMAN'S ROLE") That is a tough job. The family contributed on the whole to the Gross Domestic Product.

And, thank you flimsycauldron! Even if we don't agree, at least you can see I stick to my guns, but am willing to admit when my guns are not loaded.

Originally Posted by SSJ_Jup81

Technically, everyone contributes in some way. Every single solitary person in this country, 'cept for probably most kids, has paid some type of a tax. If anything, anyone who has paid any type of a tax should have the right to vote when becoming an adult.

You make a good point. Sales taxes, etc...

I would say those who are living off the dole, though, are paying taxes with tax money. Kind of a strange duality.

[purplehawk]

I think, though, that there is a whole lot less "sponging" than you think. Here in Ohio, the recipient's address is key. The TANF people can search by address and thus catch multiple claims. The rule is one benefit per household and household is determined in part by the claimant's address of record.

I think the mooching meme, while a decades-old conservative talking point, is about as accurate as their claims of widespread voter fraud - usually perpetrated by ACORN. The talking heads have probably never met a person on TANF and don't care to. They're only interested in gaining an electoral advantage, and demonizing minorities has worked very well for them in the past. They've even admitted it - or one of them has.

Another reason so many people remain on public assistance is conservative public policy. A convicted felon should be free to reclaim his or her future once they've done the debt to society thing. Yet they are, by and large, unemployable. There's a sentence handed down by a judge and a shadow sentence handed down by employers after the fact. There are only a few programs charged with helping these people reconnect with the workaday world and they never have enough money to make meaningful impact. It's so unfair to dismiss them as "lazy" and "shiftless" without knowing their personal stories. And conservatives do a terrible job of even bothering with those who have always been on the margins.

[rigdoctorbri]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

I think, though, that there is a whole lot less "sponging" than you think. Here in Ohio, the recipient's address is key. The TANF people can search by address and thus catch multiple claims. The rule is one benefit per household and household is determined in part by the claimant's address of record.

That might work. I don't know for sure if there is that safeguard in Illinois. Yet, even if it is, Chicago is a city of vast apartment complexes, border renters. The system could be allowed to exclude them.

I think the mooching meme, while a decades-old conservative talking point, is about as accurate as their claims of widespread voter fraud - usually perpetrated by ACORN. The talking heads have probably never met a person on TANF and don't care to. They're only interested in gaining an electoral advantage, and demonizing minorities has worked very well for them in the past. They've even admitted it - or one of them has.

Point conceded. But, nonetheless, mooching and scamming happens, and happens often.

Another reason so many people remain on public assistance is conservative public policy. A convicted felon should be free to reclaim his or her future once they've done the debt to society thing. Yet they are, by and large, unemployable. There's a sentence handed down by a judge and a shadow sentence handed down by employers after the fact. There are only a few programs charged with helping these people reconnect with the workaday world and they never have enough money to make meaningful impact. It's so unfair to dismiss them as "lazy" and "shiftless" without knowing their personal stories. And conservatives do a terrible job of even bothering with those who have always been on the margins.

I have little sympathy for criminals. There are exceptions, such as those so down on their luck that they are forced to steal (nonviolently of course) to survive, provide for family, etc. I would steal to feed my kids if I had little choice.

But felons in the USA generally, with few exceptions, lose their rights to vote as a condition of conviction, anyway.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by rigdoctorbri

That might work. I don't know for sure if there is that safeguard in Illinois. Yet, even if it is, Chicago is a city of vast apartment complexes, border renters. The system could be allowed to exclude them.

Maybe a good point for standardization of eligibility so that it's the same in all states? We really create a lot of our own problems by fragmenting what ought to be a consistent policy.

Point conceded. But, nonetheless, mooching and scamming happens, and happens often.

I don't know about "quite often," but I agree that it sometimes happens.

I have little sympathy for criminals. There are exceptions, such as those so down on their luck that they are forced to steal (nonviolently of course) to survive, provide for family, etc. I would steal to feed my kids if I had little choice.

But felons in the USA generally, with few exceptions, lose their rights to vote as a condition of conviction, anyway.

Even voting rights for convicted felons are all over the board in this country. The vast majority of states allow them to vote once their sentence is served in full. Some states deny them the vote for life. Florida is one of them and I think most of the others are also in "red states."

I don't support that last bit at all. The path to becoming a productive citizen should be a whole lot more inclusive than it is.